Posts Tagged ‘Hegel’

Friends Reunited or 500 words on the inside of a ping-pong ball….

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

How long most people will continue to put up with corporate web 2.0 platforms when they could be controlling their own sites using similar software is anyone’s guess… What we do know is that while a platform like Facebook has many users, it is not necessarily profitable. That is not, of course, the only reason why the financial value of web services that rely on user generated content ping-pong, but it is definitely a contributing factor

One corporate operation that is clearly well past its sell-by date is Friends Reunited, which ITV bought for £170 million in 2005. Attempts to sell the platform have been ongoing for most of this year – in August DC Thomson put in a £25 million offer (£145 million less than ITV paid for it), but the sale has been blocked until April so that the Competition Commission can conduct an inquiry. It will be interesting to see whether DC Thomson – or anyone else – want to pay £25 million for Friends Reunited next spring.

Friends Reunited always struck me as a platform with limited appeal. The idea was that individuals registered as having attended specific schools and were thus able to locate their former classmates. If you want to reconnect with your schoolyard chums, having done so there seems little need to use Friends Reunited to stay in touch – email, Facebook and actual meetings are obviously a more opportune means of doing so. Likewise, as time has passed it has not only become much easier to find people online at places other than Friends Reunited, the pool of those who actually want to find old school friends has greatly dwindled.

I left school more than thirty years ago and have singularly failed to keep up with the kids I’d known up to the age of sixteen. I have no desire to get back in touch with them or find out what they are doing. What would we talk about? Institutionalised cruelty might be one topic of conversation… I think our experiences of most punishments were fairly similar – detention, the ruler, the slipper, the cane, lines etc. – but the one that in retrospect most excites me probably wouldn’t be much of a talking point.

I’m amused that I should have been punished for something, I forget exactly what, by being ordered to write a 500 word essay ‘on the inside of a ping-pong ball’. I enjoyed the exercise, it was rather Hegelian, an attempt to go back to philosophical first principles and build something from nothing. Of course, I didn’t think of it like that then, but I knew intuitively it was something with which I could demonstrate the full depths of my insolence…

I remember other kids talking about how they planned to complete this task. One thing on which we all agreed was that the inside of a ping-pong ball is filled with air. Of course, this statement isn’t true in outer space, and I was possibly the only kid to realise that such a qualification would help me fill up the essay I’d been assigned as punishment.

The kids from the local children’s home who went to my school sometimes called me Brains, and they definitely though I was being a bit flash when I told a couple of them that the inside of a ping-pong ball was concave, and I’d contrasted this with the outside which is convex. I’d done this is maths but the kids I told about it weren’t in the O-level maths group (the vast majority of kids were in CSE or non-exam classes), and I guess they’d studied something different. The punishment had been assigned by a PE teacher for some infraction during a sports session, and was dished out to an assortment of boys from different academic classes.

No one else seemed to understand why I enjoyed stringing together an essay on the inside of a ping-pong ball: “The inside of a ping-pong ball is filled with air, except in outer space. Air consists primarily of oxygen and the air inside a ping-pong ball contains exactly the same amount of oxygen as the air immediately outside it…. etc. etc.” I wish I still had the essay, but since it was done as a punishment it wasn’t returned to me. I doubt it was even read, the idea was to humiliate us, the teacher probably just wanted to see that we’d filled out a couple of pages with something.

I wasn’t humiliated, I felt like I’d triumphed, but that clearly wasn’t the case for most of those who found themselves assigned this task. Their failure to understand why I perceived shit like this as a victory over an oppressive system, is one of the reasons I’ve never used a platform like Friends Reunited to get back in touch with them.

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!

The London Perambulator

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

I found myself back at the Whitechapel Gallery last night for the world premier of John Rogers’ film The London Perambulator. This documentary is a portrait of arsonist and ‘deep topographer’ Nick Papadimitriou. In 1975 the teenage Papadimitriou burnt down his school, and as a result got banged up in Ashford Remand Centre; a little later he found himself locked in a cell next to serial killer Dennis Nilsen at Wormwood Scrubs prison. Now in his fifties and after overcoming drug addiction, north London based Papadimitriou spends his days tramping around the liminal spaces of the city and collecting archival material connected to his walks. Some might call this psychogeography but since the term is now hackneyed, ‘deep topography’ provides a more attractive description. Papadimitriou’s fascination with suburban sprawl and sewage works might be seen as ‘eccentric’, and  The London Perambulator struck me as a cross between Iain Sinclair and Chris Petit’s Channel 4 movies such as The Falconer and works by  the artist Luke Fowler including Bogman Palmjaguar and The Way Out (see right column on link for Fowler review).

Like Luke Fowler in his art film portraits, Rogers refrains from providing a straight account of Papadimitriou’s life, instead leaving it to the viewer to piece together biographical fragments. The London Perambulator has a grunge aesthetic, including shaky camera-work and with the outdoor shots filmed from a walkers’ perspective, so there are no panoramas or aerial shots. Intercut into this are talking head sequences of Papadimitriou’s three most famous friends speaking about him and his activities. The talking heads are media personalities Russell Brand and Will Self, complimented by writer Iain Sinclair. Self and Sinclair are shot in their homes, whereas Brand appears to be reclining in the offices of his Vanity Productions company. There is the odd shot of Papadimitriou in his flat, but mostly he is filmed outside, sometimes accompanied by Will Self. There are variations in sound quality, with the audio on the Brand segments being superior to everything else. Brand’s Vanity company produced The London Perambulator, Rogers works there and obviously studio equipment is generally superior to its portable equivalents. That said, the sound is acceptable throughout the film, and the changes in its quality are simply a part of its grunge aesthetic. In the interests of clarity, I also need to declare here that there are a couple of projects I’ve been developing with Rogers and Vanity for some time; so if anyone wants to make accusations of nepotism, I should be included in them for blogging about this film!

After the screening there was a panel talk featuring Rogers, Sinclair and Self, with Goldsmiths College academic Andrea Philips as chair. Rogers and Sinclair acquitted themselves well. Unfortunately, the discussion became somewhat strained when Andrea Philips asked Self whether there was a master/slave relationship between him and Papadimitriou. Self jumped down her throat by denouncing this as a detour into the bondage parlour, whereas it seemed to me that Philips was invoking Hegel’s famous and much discussed master/slave dialectic as a reference point.  Likewise, my impression was that Philips was putting Papadimitriou forward as the more senior partner in his obviously close  and collaborative relationship with Self, but the media personality angrily responded that Papadimitriou was in no way beholden to him. It is difficult to imagine anyone who had just seen Rogers’ film coming away with that impression, since after viewing it only a reversal of Self’s perspective would seem in the least bit feasible.

Philips appeared shaken by Self’s odd reply to her question, which might explain why having opened the session by talking up her own academic expertise in the areas of psychogeography and urban walking, she closed by asking why these activities appealed only to men. Sinclair soon put her straight by explaining that most of those wanting to do walks with him were women, and of course Philips’ own academic research also served to disprove her final assertion. Afterwards a good number of those present headed up to the Whitechapel bar, where Self’s claim that Papadimitriou was a contemporary Rimbaud came in for some heavy criticism. On the basis of the Rogers’ film, it would appear that Papadimitriou is principally concerned with observation, whereas Rimbaud’s focus was transformation; such differences clearly render Self’s claim untenable.

The London Perambulator was screened as a part of the East London Film Festival (23-30 April 2009, various locations).

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – www.stewarthomesociety.org – you know it makes (no) sense!

On the alchemical secrets of the data stream

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Sometimes I like to try fairly random web searches just to see what comes up; and this has the added bonus of confusing data miners. Doing this today I started with “empty blogs” coz like Hegel in the Logic I figured you should start at the bottom and work your way up (not that you’d catch me stoppin’ with the Prussian state!). Unfortunately the search for “empty blogs’ didn’t turn up much of interest. Personally I just can’t take supposedly ‘professional’ blog tips seriously, and especially when they include advice like don’t repeat yourself. As you probably know, I love repeating myself coz it’s so post-modern, as well as being side-splittingly funny. Oh and I also found a site hosting blogs that was berating users who’d opened up accounts but failed to post anything. A blog about this from the management team concluded with the message:

“You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.”

Yeah, search for shit and you get shit. So I figured I might as well apply my alchemical knowledge to this search and transmute some shit into gold. I went for “empty blog’ and “Stewart Home” and got only one entry, but what an entry! A blog by top American novelist Dennis Cooper from 30 July 2006:

“Joe Mills said… if the competition was a ploy to out The Lurkers – it worked. Lots of new names – unfortunately not much info on their (often empty) blogs… Jeff said. Everyone here should check out lutherblissett.net. Dennis, have you heard of the Luther Blissett project? I think Stewart Home is involved…”

Yep, it looks like it is the all important comments that will pull the traffic onto your blog, coz they just produce such wonderfully post-modern random word combinations.

Moving on I figured I should reverse my search process with a double dose of shit by looking for “empty blogs” and “Kate Muir”.  And it was no surprise to be told: “Your search – ‘empty blogs’ ‘Kate Muir’ – did not match any documents.” Yes, out of nothing comes nothing. And little Katie the Times columnist with an irrational fear of ‘drunk ventriloquists” really ain’t worth nothing at all! But all that has changed thanks to me. From now on when you search for “empty blogs” and “Kate Muir” you can come here… Like that old groover The Almost Fake Heraclitus observed way back when: “it is impossible to step into the same data stream twice…”

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/ – you know it makes (no) sense!

20 searching personal questions about Stewart Home, with answers!

Saturday, January 3rd, 2009

1. Why do you write? To create laughter.

2. Where do you write? Anywhere there is space for a computer: I don’t write, I type.

3. Which person in history do you most admire? Myself.

4. What do you consider to be the most important moment in literary history? The publication of my novel “Memphis Underground” on 26 April 2007.

5 What is your favourite quotation? “Bad poets borrow, good poets steal” or “I learn nothing from the dead art of living men, I learn everything from the living art of dead men, long live the dead!”

6. Which writer (living or dead) would you most like to have dinner with? Karl Marx if I’m not allowed Pamela Anderson or Naomi Campbell (due to the fact they employ ghost writers).

7. What or who inspired you to become a writer? It was an accident, I was more interested in playing rock and roll but I wasn’t that hot as a lead guitarist and I didn’t get enough attention playing rhythm or bass guitar.

8. If you had another job before you became a writer, what was it? I was unemployed and claimed welfare.

9. Of the books you have written, do you have a favourite? Mostly it is the last one I’ve written or published, and I’m particularly proud of “Slow Death”, “69 Things To Do With A Dead Princess”, “Tainted Love” and “Memphis Underground”.

10. Which book would you make compulsory reading? Hegel’s “Philosophy of Mind”.

11. If you had to choose one book to take to a desert island, what would it be? A survival manual.

12. What book are you reading at the moment? A manuscript copy of Terry Taylor’s “The Run” from the early seventies, a follow-up to his only published novel “Baron’s Court, All Change”.

13. What is your favourite Serpent’s Tail title? “Mind Invaders” edited by me.

14. What is the first book you can remember reading? “The Cat In The Hat” by Doctor Seuss, the first “adult” books I read were sword and sorcery novels by Michael Moorcock, spy and detective novels by Mickey Spillane and Ian Fleming, and youth culture novels by Richard Allen and Peter Cave.

15. What book do you consider most overrated? “Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens (in fact his entire output); “1984″ by George Orwell; anything by Martin Amis or Salman Rushdie.

16. Who is your favourite character (from a book)? John from Clarence Cooper Junior’s “The Farm”.

17. Which fictional character would you most like to be? Jerry Cornelius, Michael Moorcock’s hipster hero from London’s Notting Hill, subsequently taken up by other authors.

18. Which book would you like to see filmed? Henry Flynt’s collection of essays “Blueprint For A Higher Civilization”.

19. What is your favourite word? Groovy.

20. Which words or phrases do you most overuse? “Pass lightly through the trip”, “have a groove today”, “straight from the fridge”.

And while you’re at it don’t forget to check – http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/ – you know it makes (no) sense!